From the article:
"In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.”

So what if any part of the car did catch fire?

AoneOne | 2014/02/13 - 16:02

Looking at the pictures, the fire appeared to affect, at most, the front of the car, which could raise suspicions about the front brakes, A/C compressor, power steering, active suspension pump, 12V electrical system, headlights, etc.

AlMc | 2014/02/13 - 16:18

It was also pointed out on the TMC forum by one of it's most respected members that there has been a series of garage arson fires in Toronto recently. In addition, this happened February 1st and was reported by the author of this report at 4:02pm (just after the markets closed) and three days before ER report.

I am not a conspirarcy theorist and I don't need a tin foil hat...this is FUD IMO.

AlMc | 2014/02/13 - 16:20

PS..To the OP: Might want to change the title to

"A garage in Toronto caught on fire with a Tesla in it"

Probably more appropriate and a little less visceral.

Thanks

AmpedRealtor | 2014/02/13 - 16:41

Guys and gals... There is more to this story, not the least of which is that Tesla indirectly admitted fault:

"The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined."

Tesla would not have offered to "take care of the damages and inconvenience" if they did not feel largely responsible. Also please note this portion of Tesla's carefully worded quote:

"In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire."

If the fire clearly wasn't caused by the car, Tesla would have said so in no uncertain terms. But instead, they point to specific systems that were not the cause. This leaves the door open...

AmpedRealtor | 2014/02/13 - 16:50

To be fair to Tesla... they could have been offering to "take care of the damages" to the car, not the property. The article worded it somewhat vaguely. It's also interesting that this occurred on February 1st and the article did not appear until today - almost two weeks later.

Lots of questions!

flyjeffva | 2014/02/13 - 16:52

And....why would the owner decline assistance?

TSLAholic | 2014/02/13 - 16:52

Any damages to the car should already be covered by the latest provision of the warranty, shouldn't they?

AmpedRealtor | 2014/02/13 - 16:56

Assuming the assistance was offered, the owner may have declined it simply due to the fact that he is handling it through his insurance company. Or, there were strings attached to Tesla's deal which the owner did not find appealing (i.e., don't sue us and don't talk with the media). All pure speculation...

Chuck Lusin | 2014/02/13 - 17:01

We can not have TSLA to high, someone go burn one again.
"....why would the owner decline assistance?" Really, anyone of us that had that happen, would totally want a new car.

DTsea | 2014/02/13 - 17:04

Presumably the owner refused assistance so he could sue later.

TSLAholic | 2014/02/13 - 17:14

So, does the new warranty provision cover only battery fires, or does Tesla owe this guy a new car?
Also, as far as accusations of FUD are concerned, are we seriously implying that someone was paid off to catch their house on fire?

GoTeslaChicago | 2014/02/13 - 17:29

Besides the obvious possibility of arson mentioned above, the interior of most cars, including presumably the Model S, are highly flammable, and once ignited burn with considerable smoke and heat. Any one think to ask if the driver was a smoker? If not that, perhaps an electrical fault with the seat heaters, or any other electrical components of the car, especially those in the interior of the cabin.

The one thing that seemed puzzling to me was the statement that a few moments after coming home the owners fire detector went off and the fire department was called. Either the fire response was very slow, or the fire spread very fast!

PorfirioR | 2014/02/13 - 17:54

The fact that Tesla had 7 employees at the scene tells me that Tesla believes that this warranted an unprecedented level of investigation. Also, that this was a planned response to the next incident.

Tesla is going to tear this car down to its smallest components. If there is any foul play or deception uncovered, an example will be made of someone.

MichaelN | 2014/02/13 - 18:16

Perhaps something got caught up in the wheel/calipers - or maybe the 12V - or maybe something in the frunk - BUT definite not the battery, the charging system or the adapter/cord - I am baffled by why the owner would decline Tesla's help - and Tesla has to get the car before they can tear it apart - in CA we don't typically have smoke detectors in the garage, another unusual part of the story - two weeks to get reported?? - timing of the report is sketchy to me -

jordanrichard | 2014/02/13 - 18:34

Why is the paper reporting something that happened "earlier in the month". Is this a monthly paper/magazine?

donahue.rw | 2014/02/13 - 18:48

The car also look modified in the wheels, windows, and blacked out trim. I feel like this fire will be owner caused via a modification. Just look at Tesla's respons.

"In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.”

jordanrichard | 2014/02/13 - 18:50

I just noticed that it is an article from Yahoo. Seems odd that they are the only ones reporting this.... There is no mention of this on CNN's website.

jvs11560 | 2014/02/13 - 18:51

The owner probably declined because Tesla wanted to take the car. I know all car companies have to deal with fires, but those are usually older cars with high mileage. This car was only (4) months old. My question is why was this kept quiet for (2) weeks? Tesla owners should know this information. Charging out in the cold is not a good option either. Hope they find out what went wrong here...

eddiemoy | 2014/02/13 - 18:55

tesla at all time high, short interest close to 30 m shares. few days before blow out quarter.

fires seem to coming only when the shorts are hurting bad.

jks1 | 2014/02/13 - 19:16

I don't have a smoke detector in my garage but do have a fire sprinkler right over good. Hope the cause is something rare as I don't want to park her out in the California cold.

jks1 | 2014/02/13 - 19:17

Sorry, auto-correct typed hood to good!

Kleist | 2014/02/13 - 19:29

@jvs11560 - new cars burn up at twice the rate compared to older cars. Factory defects.

1LuckyGuy | 2014/02/13 - 19:38

GM just recalled hundreds of thousands of cars because 6 people have burned to death!

Pettifogger.ca.us | 2014/02/13 - 20:03

The Business Insider story doesn't give any source or attribution for its details beyond the "Tesla confirmed ..." quote. The Toronto Star online archive has nothing about the incident. Curiouser and curiouser ...

Hmm..."They also had to remove the other car in the garage, a Lexus, which was parked next to the Tesla."

The MS is seen sitting largely unharmed but the FD wisely chose to remove the Lexus quickly, which in short order could have exploded. Smart firemen!

This should be interesting to follow...

KalOrtPor | 2014/02/13 - 20:16

Really starting to think it was either a separate device in the vicinity of the Model S, or an improper mod. I think whatever the cause, it's not something the owner wants known, either due to intention or liability reasons.

jk2014 | 2014/02/13 - 20:18

Lots of problems here:

-- Author of the article does articles on local New York City/financial stories. How is she breaking news in Toronto on Tesla?

-- Photo ownership ascribed to Business Insider. Did Business Insider pay for those photos, or was a BI photographer there? How did they obtain the photos and not multiple other news source, especially local?

--Story breaks two weeks after incident, which happens after the stock closes over 199, the highest in its history. Also, the night before options expire Friday before three day weekend for the news cycle to dwell on it extra long. Does this sound like manipulation as short interest is a very large 35% of the float and would have crushed short sellers as momentum would have driven the stock higher into the highly anticipated Q4 earnings release/call?

--Why did the author point out every fire that has happened before in the context of a earnings report next week? Why didn't they quote an actual person from Tesla and why would Tesla give Business Insider all this information? Why would Tesla tell Business insider they offered to pay for the damages? Why wasn't a report/representative from the fire department quoted?

This reeks. Real bad. A lot of money riding on it going down tomorrow, would be very curious as to the legitimacy of the whole thing.